Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1076/2010

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Neel Kanth Fertilizers, - Opp.Party(s)

Ran Singh Chauhan

21 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                             Complaint No. ..1076  of 2010.

                                                                                             Date of institution: .11.11.2010    

                                                                                             Date of decision: 21.10.2015.

Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Randhir Singh, resident of Village Galoli, P.O. Harnaul, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.   

 

                                                                                                                       ...Complainant

                                    Versus

 

1. M/s Neel Kanth Fertilizer, Ambala Road, Near Rakshak Vihar Chowki, Jagadhri 135003, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor.  
2. Maxima Seeds SY No.161, Village Elikatta Shad Nagar, Hyderabad ( A.P., H/o 402, Srinivasa Apat, Bhagyanagar Colony, Opp. KPHP, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072.
3. M/s Plantgene Seeds Limited Corporate Office: 36-B, Edmonton Mall, The Bristol Hotel, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana).

IInd Address:

M/s Plantgene Seeds Limited, T-G-2-C-1, Garden Estate, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana).       

 

                                                                                                                   …Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Ran Singh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

              OP No.2 & 3 already ex-parte.  

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Suresh Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1950/- on account of cost of seed and further to pay Rs. 1,40,000/- on account of loss of crops/ produce and other incidental charges etc. and further to pay Rs. 40,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, suffered by complainant due to unfair trade practice played by OPs alongwith Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses and incidental charges.  

2.                     Brief facts as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased one bag of 3 Kgs. of paddy seed of SH-2144, of Maxima Seeds, (Manufactured by OP No. 2) bearing Lot No. 09221, for an amount of Rs. 650/- and two bags of 3 Kgs. each of paddy seed of PG-7140 of Plan Jeen Seeds (Manufactured by OP No.3) for an amount of Rs. 1300/- from the OP No.1 vide Bill No. 1329 dated 13.6.2010 (Annexure C-1).  Thereafter the complainant sown the abovesaid paddy seed and planted in 3 acres of agriculture land i.e. in one acre of 2144 variety and in two acres of 7140 variety and waited for a sufficient time. When the paddy crop was ready to harvest, there were mixed variety of plants in the entire crop of paddy i.e. the paddy seed was not of pure quality. Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 who told him that he has discussed with the company and assured him that a technical person from the company will visit his field for inspection within 4-5 days but neither OP No.1 nor any person visited the field of complainant.  Finding no other alternative, the complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar ( copy of application is Annexure C-2) for the inspection of crop and assessment of loss of said paddy crops. Thereafter, the Agriculture experts visited the fields of the complainant and found that there is mixing of several varieties in the crop and due to which 15% crop has ripen and 25% crop is at the stage of growing grains and made a report (Annexure C-3) that there was mixture of 40%  of another paddy seeds.  In this way the complainant has to suffer a loss to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000/- on account of produce of paddy crop, besides preparation of fields, plantation of paddy, fertilizers, pesticides etc.  As such, OPs sold the sub standard and mixture paddy seeds to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part.  Hence this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 &2  appeared and filed their written statement separately but OP No.3 failed to appear despite service through registered post, hence it was proceed ex-parte vide order dated 9.2.2015. After filing written statement with documents,  OP NO.2 failed to appear, hence it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 9.2.2015.

4                      OP No.1 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as no locus standi to file the present complaint, complaint is not maintainable, stopped by his own act asnd conduct, no cause of action against OP No.1 and on merit it has been mentioned that OP No.1 supplied the packed seed to the complainant as per his wishes, which the OP No.1 purchased from OPs No.2 & 3 vide bill No. 202 dated 19.4.2010 and 79 dated 26.3.2010 as it was packed by the Maxima & Plantgene Seeds. Moreover, the complainant himself might have has not properly sown, watered the said seed and has mixed the same with some other seed and now has filed this false and bogus complaint. So, the OP No.1 is not at all liable for any alleged mixing or sub standard quality. The OP No.1 has no knowledge about any alleged inspection and report nor the Op No.1 was informed about the same. So, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     OP No.2 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant is not the consumer of OP No.2 as the complainant has purchased the seed from OP No.1 who is not authorized dealer of OP No.2 and on merit it has been mentioned that according to section 13(1)(c ) of Consumer Protection Act that where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate “ it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory alongwith direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defects and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty five days of the receipt of reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum, but in this complaint no such type of application is filed by the complainant. If the complainant did not have any sample of the product then he can also file the application before the Forum for direction to OP to submit the sample for re-testing the same. The OP will arrange the sample for re-testing. This compliance of provisions of Section 13(1) (c ) is mandatory without this no finding can be given. A direction issued by Director of Agriculture Haryana, Panchkula to all the Deputy Director, Agriculture in the state vide memo No. 52-70 dated 3.1.2002 regarding the inspection of farmer fields on receipt of a complaint regarding sale of poor quality seeds, the brief facts of this letter is “ it has been reported by the some seed producing distributors agent that fields of complainants farmer are inspected by the office of agriculture department without associating the representative of concern seeds. Some times cases in the court of law are decided after taking into consideration reports of these inspections. Therefore, it has been decided that fields of complainant farmer will be inspected by a committee comprising two officer of agriculture department, one representative of concern seed agency and scientist of KGK/KVK  HAU and report will be submitted to the officer immediately after inspection.” In the present case no committee was insisted at the time of inspection of field of complainant, so, the said report which is prepared by agriculture department is false and same is prepared with the help of complainant. The hybrid rice cultivation is totally based on calculating cultivation i.e. planting time, seeds and other inputs, nursery management, main field management, weed management, Nutrient Management, Water Management, Disease and Pest management. The complainant completely failed to followed the abovesaid procedure due to this he failed to achieve the best result of the product and on merit it has been stated that according to recommendation issued by Agriculture Department, Haryana 6 Kg. to 8 Kg. seeds required for one acre but in this complaint complainant admitted that he used only one bag of 3 Kg. in one care of land, which is very less quantity and yield always depends on the quantity i.e. 6 Kg. to 8 Kg. for one acre of land. The report submitted by the Deputy Director is false and manipulated one only to grab the compensation amount. There is no deficiency or negligence service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and document such as Annexure C-1 Bill of paddy seed as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of application for inspection of seed as Annexure C-2, Inspection Report of Agriculture Department as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

7.                     On the other hand, OP No.1 has tendered into evidence documents such as Affidavit of Hari Krishan Malik proprietor of Neelkanth Fertilizers as Annexure RW/A, Photo copy of invoice No.79 dated 26.3.2010 as Annexure R.1, Photo copy of Invoice No. 202 dated 19.4.2010 as Annexure R.2 and closed its evidence.  

8.                     OP No.2 at the time of filing of written statement filed affidavit of S.S.Sompur, Director of M/s Maxima Seeds as Annexure OP2/A and documents such as Photo copy of Test Report of the Samples as Annexure OP2/B, Photo copy of Acknowledgement of Registration of Firm as Annexure OP2/C, Photo copy of Form No.D as Annexure OP2/D,  Photo copy of Form B as Annexure OP2/E, Photo copy of letter memo No. 52-70 dated 3.1.2002 as Annexure OP2/F with the written statement in support of its version.

9.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as OP No.1 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

10.                   Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased one bag of 3 Kgs of paddy seed of SH 2144 of Maxima seeds  (Manufactured by OP No. 2) bearing Lot No. 09221, for an amount of Rs. 650/- and two bags of 3 Kgs. each of paddy seed of PG-7140 of Plan Jeen Seeds (Manufactured by OP No.3) for an amount of Rs. 1300/- from the OP No.1 vide Bill No. 1329 dated 13.6.2010 (Annexure C-1).   Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the seed supplied by the OP No.1 was having mixing of other varieties and in this regard the complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture Yamuna Nagar for inspection of the said paddy crop. The three officers of the Agriculture Department visited the field of complainant and submitted their report (Annexure C-3) mentioning therein that 15% balia has ripen and 25% paddy crop is ready to ripe. Thus, approximately 40% of other varieties were found mixed in the paddy crop. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that due to the supplying of substandard and mixed seed, the complainant has suffered a monetary loss and prayed for compensation and referred the case law titled as M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. Madhusudhan Reddy and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) page 838 (Supreme Court of India), wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 13(1) ( C) and 12- Seed purchased by Farmers from Seed Corporation- Seed found to be defective- Farmer unable to produce defective sample before Consumer Forum as entire seed was sown and no sample was retained- Complaint could not be rejected- To prove defect farmers could not be expected to keeping a sample before sowing-Defective sample otherwise proved by Horticulture and Agriculturist experts.  Further during the course of arguments counsel for the complainant filed photo copy of certified copy of report under section 173 CPC and FIR No. 457 dated 12.11.2010 registered in P.S. City Jagadhri and argued that a criminal case was also registered against the authorized persons of OP No.1 & 2 regarding the mixing of seed.

11.                   Learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued that the report is nothing but it is a waste paper as no notice was ever given either to the manufacturer or to the dealer before inspecting the field of the complainant. There is also a mandatory provision under section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provisions. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further urged that as per report of the agriculture department, it is clear that before spot inspection of the field of complainant, no demarcation was conducted by the official of Revenue Department as no Khasra Number have been mentioned in the report by the inspecting team. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further urged that without demarcation of field, it cannot be stated as to which field the inspection report pertains. So, it is quite clear that the inspecting team has tried to give undue benefits to the complainant in their report and referred the case laws titled as Anand Singh Vs. Khurana Seed Store and another, 2007(1) CPC page 95 Haryana State Commission, Panchkula, Narender Kumar Versus M/s Arora Trading Company and others, 2007(2) CLT page 683 Haryana State Commission, Panchkula.

12.                   It is not disputed that complainant had purchased purchased one bag of 3 Kgs of paddy seed of SH 2144 of Maxima seeds  (Manufactured by OP No. 2) bearing Lot No. 09221, for an amount of Rs. 650/- and two bags of 3 Kgs. each of paddy seed of PG-7140 of Plan Jeen Seeds (Manufactured by OP No.3) for an amount of Rs. 1300/- from the OP No.1 vide Bill No. 1329 dated 13.6.2010 (Annexure C-1).   

13.                   The contention of the complainant is that the seed in question was of inferior quality and that was also having mixture of seed of different varieties and to prove his contention he placed the report of Agriculture Department Annexure C-3.

14.                   Before reaching to any conclusion, it is much necessary to examine the report Annexure C-3 minutely. From the perusal of this report (Annexure C-3), it is clear that field of complainant has been inspected by three agriculture officers, one  Quality Control Inspector, Yamuna Nagar, Subject Specialized (Plant Protection), Jagadhri and Block Agriculture Officer, Jagadhri whereas as per guidelines/instructions issued by Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department Panchkula, vide memo No. 52-70 dated 3.1.2002 TA/SS, for spot inspection there should be three officers out of this two officers from Agriculture Department and one from Krishi Vigyan Kender KGK/HAU and one member of the concerned seed agency but in this case neither any scientist from Krishi Vigyan Kender nor any representative from concerned seed company has been associated at the time of inspection of the field. Even no respectable person like Sarpacnh, Panch or Lumberdar or any neighborer of land has been joined by the inspecting team at the time of inspection of the field. Besides it, the said report is also not authenticate because the alleged inspection has been made by the officials of the Agriculture Department without getting the land identified from any official of the revenue department prior to spot inspection as no Killa Number or Khasra number has been mentioned in the report and as such it cannot be said with certainty as to which field the inspection report in question pertains. The same view has been held in case titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, IV (2013) CPJ page 186 National Commission, it has been held that Agriculture-Defective Seed-Growth of crop not satisfactory-Loss suffered-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed the complaint- State Commission accepted appeal and dismissed the complaint- Hence revision- When there is complaint by the farmers regarding quality of seed, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising two officials of the Agriculture Department, one representative of the concerned seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kender- Said inspection had not been followed by the Agriculture Department while giving their report- Factum of the complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality of the seed has not been established by any scientist or other evidence- No illegality or irregularity in impugned order. Revision dismissed.

15.                   There is a mandatory provision under section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act for analysis of seed from the appropriate laboratory but the complainant has not followed the said provision nor moved any application to the concerned authority i.e. Agriculture Department or this Forum to get the sample from the OPs and send for analysis.  Further no any notice has been served upon the OPs prior to inspection of the field and thus the report in question prepared at the back of the OPs is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Without any expert evidence on the record as provided in section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act it cannot be said that seed sold to the complainants were adulterated and were of inferior quality. Reliance on this point can be taken from the case law titled as Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies 2007 (2) CLT page 683 and Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others 2013 Volume 2 page 616 National Commission wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that petitioner had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under provision of section 13(1)         ( C ) of the Consumer Protection Act  1986- He had also not moved an application before the concerned authority for getting seed of the same batch, number, tested from any laboratory- report of agriculture department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of field for associating them with inspection- Inferior quality of seed not proved. The observations mentioned in the case laws titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. Bagri Beej Bhandar, Narender Kumar vs. M/s Arora Trading Companies & Banta Ram Vs. Jai Bharat and company and others (supra) are fully applicable in the present case.

16.                   Apart from above noted facts, complainant has also failed to file any revenue record i.e. Fard Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari showing his ownership and cultivation of land or file any documentary evidence to prove that he has cultivated any land after taking from any other person on lease or any other way. Furthermore, inspection team has totally failed to explain the criteria for assessing the percentage of 40% of mixing as mentioned in the report. In the absence of method adopted by the said team, it cannot be said that the criteria adopted by the said committee is correct. Moreover, from the perusal of Annexure C-1, it is clear that the complainant has purchased two varieties of paddy seed from the OP No.1 and he might have mixed the seed of different variety before sowing the same in the field. The said committee simply mentioned that 15% paddy has ripen and 25% paddy is ready to ripe, it does not mean that there was loss of 40%. Besides this, the OP No.2 tendered test report of State Lab Karnal as Annexure OP2/B wherein 100% purity in respect of paddy seed bearing Lot No. 9221 has been shown. The complainant has totally failed to prove any loss by cogent evidence. So, after going through the above noted discussion and law we are of the considered view that the report Annexure C-3 has no value in the eyes of law and there is no other evidence on the file to prove that seed in question was of inferior quality and that the same was having mixture of the different variety.    

17.                   Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 21.10.2015.          

             

                                                                              ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                              (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                               MEMBER